Outside of Nashville, Newsom attempted to bro-wash his image on the incredibly popular right-of-center podcast The Shawn Ryan Show hosted by a former Navy SEAL. Shawn Ryan has been criticized for even platforming Newsom, but that’s unfair. Our nation is arguably helped when Newsom’s most unbelievable and pathological tendencies are on full public display.

Ryan opened the show by giving Newsom a “California-compliant” handgun. Newsom accepted the weapon and then asserted that he is “not anti-gun at all,” a “great” skeet shooter, and primarily a “bow hunter.” Despite his stated enthusiasm for guns, this was the first gun Newsom, at 56, has owned.

Over just the next 15 minutes, Newsom brazenly misrepresented his 2020/2021 governance. Californians remember those years as a time when he abused his executive emergency powers by locking down his state longer than any other American governor and faced a recall. When Ryan asked what mistakes he made during those years, Newsom eventually said, “We realized then, after the fact, what, what the hell are we doing? Shutting down the beaches and open areas!”

Unlike Newsom, many of us knew – and publicly said in the moment – that shutting down open spaces in response to an airborne virus was asinine and dangerous. But Newsom’s over-reliance on political science over actual science doomed us. 

Other Covid-era mistakes he could have discussed but didn’t: extended mask mandates; vaccine mandates; school closures beyond any reasonable measure while his kids attended an open, private school; a $1.4 billion-dollar no-bid contract for defective masks from China; shutting down churches while allowing dispensaries, Home Depots, and strip clubs to remain open; and allowed criminals to steal over $30 billion from the state’s unemployment fund. 

Over the ensuing four-hour interview, Newsom declared that the “California exodus is a myth,” claiming that California’s population is surging again. The truth? California has lost more people domestically to other states than it has gained in every single year that Newsom has been governor. Its population growth is tied entirely to international immigration, both legal and illegal. Yet, even with those sources of growth, California has grown by only 50,000 people since Newsom came into office. Texas and Florida, governed by Newsom’s nemeses, have grown about two million each.

Ryan confronted Newsom for congratulating San Francisco on cleaning up homelessness only during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s 2023 visit. Back then, Newsom famously told reporters, “I know folks say, ‘Oh, they’re just cleaning up this place because all those fancy leaders are coming into town,’ That’s true, because it’s true.” But to Shawn Ryan, Newsom said flatly, “That’s complete bulls—t.”

While many of us agree with Newsom’s literal words, we agree for reasons he surely didn’t intend.

Those of us who have lived through Newsom’s reign will be left wondering if he believed every lie and half-truth he told to Ryan, or if he hopes that the nation will believe if he tries just hard enough. As Texas Governor Greg Abbott says often to the two million people who moved to his state from California, Newsom’s approach is all hat and no cattle.

Will O’Neill is chairman of the Republican Party of Orange County and served twice as mayor of Newport Beach, including in 2020.

It was the wrong number; it minimizes the state’s chronic gap between income and outgo, as the state’s official budget summary released this week confirms.

The budget projects that the state will receive $208.6 billion in general fund revenues during the fiscal year that began on July 1, but it will spend $228.4 billion, a gap just shy of $20 billion.

The $12 billion figure stems from counting a $7.1 billion diversion from one of the state’s reserve accounts as revenue — an assumption that violates common sense as well as any legitimate accounting scenario.

The more accurate figure of $20 billion is important because it squares with projections by Newsom’s Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst’s Office that California has what’s called a “structural deficit” in the range of $10 billion to $20 billion a year.

In other words financing all of the programs and services now in state law will indefinitely cost that much more each year than the state is likely to receive in revenues.

The budget closes about a third of the $20 billion gap with an aforementioned $7.1 billion shift from the emergency reserve — money that’s supposed to be used to cushion the impact of an economic downturn or calamities such as the wildfires that devastated Los Angeles, earthquakes or destructive storms.

The deficit isn’t a genuine emergency because it resulted from irresponsible political decisions, particularly Newsom’s declaration in 2022 that the state had a $97.5 billion budget surplus and thus could afford a sharp increase in spending.

The surplus was a mirage, based on assumptions of a $40 billion annual increase in revenues that never happened. Last year, the Department of Finance acknowledged that revenues over four years would fall short of expectations by $165 billion.

However, much of the phantom money was already spent, thereby creating the structural deficit that Newsom and the Legislature basically ignored in putting together the current budget.

The $12 billion gap left after the reserve fund shift was mostly papered over with on- and off-budget loans from special funds, shifting some spending into future years and using accounting gimmicks, such as shifting some current year spending, the June 2026 state payroll for instance, into the next fiscal year.

One could liken the state budget to a family that takes out loans on its credit cards to finance a lavish lifestyle, or a city that provides pension benefits it cannot afford.

States cannot file for bankruptcy, no matter how distorted their finances. If they could, California would not qualify because of its almost unlimited ability to borrow money from special funds.

However, there will be a day of judgment if California’s spending continues to outpace its revenues, particularly if the state’s economy continues its sluggish performance.

Newsom and legislators implicitly assume that at some point revenues will increase enough to cover their spending and pay off their debts — just as a debt-ridden family buys lottery tickets in hopes of avoiding bankruptcy.

Dan Walters is a CalMatters columnist.

Yet, Representative Young Kim has not done nearly enough to stand up to Donald Trump’s reckless trade war or to protect the people she was elected to serve.

The tomato tariff is going to be a direct hit to CA-40. Tomato prices are set to rise by 10% or more at grocery stores and restaurants, hitting working-class and immigrant families the hardest. 

In a district where over 40% of residents are immigrants and food service jobs are the backbone of our local economy, this is a direct assault on our quality of life.

Grocery bills are already up 28% over five years. Now, tariffs could add up to $4,900 to the average family’s annual food costs in 2025, with fresh produce like tomatoes among the most affected.

Local businesses, especially restaurants, retailers, and distributors, will see their costs spike, forcing them to raise prices or cut jobs. The ripple effect will be felt in every corner of our district, from family-owned taquerias to local burger joints and beyond.

Rep. Young Kim has introduced a bill that would require the president to notify Congress 48 hours before changing tariff policy and to provide a justification report. 

While this may sound like oversight, it is little more than a procedural speed bump. It does not stop the tariffs, nor does it offer real relief to families and businesses already struggling with rising costs.

Kim has not directly opposed Trump’s tariffs or called for their repeal. She has expressed “concerns” and asked for “transparency,” but has not taken a stand against the policy itself. Her bill fails to deter the President’s tariff agenda; and by her own admission, it simply asks for advance notice, not action.

Our community needs a fighter, not a bystander. We need a representative who will demand an end to these harmful tariffs, not just request a memo about them.

Thousands of jobs are at stake in California’s food, logistics, and retail sectors. The critically important ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are already seeing a 30 to 35 percent drop in cargo volume due to tariffs, threatening livelihoods up and down the supply chain.

Food insecurity will rise as working-class families are forced to choose between healthy food and other essentials. For many, this is not a political debate but a question of whether they can put fresh food on the table.

Retaliatory tariffs from Mexico could further damage California’s agricultural economy, putting even more jobs and businesses at risk.

Rep. Kim’s tepid response is not enough.

Our community deserves a leader who will:

• Publicly and unequivocally oppose the tomato tariff and all harmful trade policies that raise costs for working families.

• Fight for real solutions to lower grocery prices and protect jobs, not just ask for more paperwork from Washington.

• Stand up to her own party and to President Trump when their policies hurt the people of CA-40.

The tomato tariff is a test of leadership. So far, Young Kim is failing that test. Our families, our businesses, and our future are too important to settle for less.

Bomi Kong is CEO of KYLOBAL INC. in Los Angeles.

Given the rampant lawlessness we have seen from ICE over the past few months, we should all be extremely concerned about what this budget increase will mean for communities across America.

Under Trump, ICE is essentially operating as a lawless paramilitary operation, intended to intimidate Americans—immigrants and citizens alike—with shocking displays of brute force such as the sweep of MacArthur Park in Los Angeles, in which 90 National Guardsmen and dozens of ICE agents, utilizing 17 military Humvees and four tactical vehicles, descended on a mostly empty park, terrifying the few young kids and parents playing together.

We’ve seen the videos. We’ve heard the eyewitness accounts. ICE agents are kidnapping and assaulting people in broad daylight. They are doing so while masked up, refusing to identify themselves, and wearing civilian clothing like jeans and sneakers. They jump out of unmarked vans and tackle, shove, and punch civilians, and frankly, other than the ICE vests or jackets they wear—which have been available for sale on Amazon for $29.99—they often look and act more like gang members than law enforcement agents. Bystanders who have asked for identification or arrest warrants have been assaulted and arrested. Those who seek to film these incidents have been threatened at gunpoint.

Actual police officers follow the law. They wear body cameras and are subject to disciplinary action if they violate the constitutional rights of the civilians they are meant to protect. But this is not the case with ICE agents, who are completely unaccountable and totally out of control. ICE agents have assaulted citizens, elected officials, including members of Congress, and even police officers.

And the reality here is that ICE is making our communities more dangerous, not safer. As podcaster Joe Rogan recently noted, Trump ran on a platform of deporting violent criminals and gang members. In reality, as the right-wing Cato Institute recently found, only 7% of the people being arrested by ICE have ever been convicted of a violent crime. Instead of going after criminals, ICE is targeting peaceful, law abiding immigrants, including those here with permanent residency and student visas, and their families. 

This cannot stand. We must rein in the lawlessness of ICE. That starts by demanding accountability for criminal actions by ICE agents. That’s why I’m leading a letter to the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security to demand answers into the conduct of ICE agents. Americans deserve to know that the federal agents their taxpayer dollars fund are obeying the law and respecting our fundamental rights.

Like so many Americans, I’m the proud son of immigrants. My parents left Korea in search of the promise etched on our Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” These attacks on our immigrant communities are not just an attack on our rule of law, they are also an attack on our most important and cherished American values. And I will continue to fight to protect our Constitution and the constituents I represent.

Dave Min represents California’s 47th congressional district.

We can use the help. Not only is the Trump administration openly hostile to the State’s environmental policy priorities, but California is falling far short of its carbon emission reduction goals. Fortunately, two housing bills proposed this year in the California state legislature—Senate Bill 79 and Assembly Bill 130—can positively transform the state’s environmental policy. AB 130, a bill that was folded into addenda to Governor Gavin Newsom’s state budget and became law this month, exempts urban infill housing from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The second one, SB 79, which has been passed by the Senate but not yet by the Assembly, would legalize mid-sized apartment buildings near transit.

Why are these bills so critical? Because smarter land use policy is climate policy. For decades, California has focused on regulating emissions from cars, buildings, and power plants while neglecting the underlying systems that drive these emissions: where and how we build housing. As we have demonstrated before, allowing more walkable and transit-accessible housing is one of the most powerful tools we have to fix our state’s housing shortage and reduce carbon emissions. A joint report by UC Berkeley and the State of California found that the only pathway to reach carbon neutrality by 2045 involves building far more housing in our cities. 

Historically, CEQA lawsuits filed to delay or block construction have been one of the most significant barriers to new housing in urban areas. Consider Lorena Plaza, a 44-unit affordable housing complex adjacent to transit in Los Angeles, which opened in April. The development is a home run for the environment, allowing working-class families to rely on clean, low-carbon transportation. Yet, this project took 18 years to actually get built due to bureaucratic red tape and a prolonged CEQA lawsuit filed by a neighboring business. Ultimately dismissed by the court, the lawsuit aimed to halt the project by incurring high legal fees.

This story is far from unique; CEQA is California’s primary environmental law, designed to give the public information about the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects. CEQA has a clear rationale in cases involving new homes being built in fire-prone areas, industrial polluters, and large-scale projects with considerable risks. But its application to modest urban apartment buildings is redundant at best and obstructive at worst, especially considering that cities already conduct environmental impact analyses on plans that direct future housing growth. Both CEQA’s strongest critics and supporters agree that the intention of the law is not to block infill housing; these lawsuits are simply a tool for NIMBYs.

AB 130 has addressed this by streamlining CEQA review for infill housing aligned with existing zoning, removing duplicative red tape while preserving environmental oversight. It’s an overdue reform to ensure that CEQA serves its intended purpose: protecting the environment, not standing in the way of solutions to save it.

SB 79 would change that by simply legalizing walkable, multi-family housing around transit stops. Data shows that residents living within a half-mile of transit are four times more likely to use transit, and 52% of automobile commuters switch to public transit when it becomes accessible. In Virginia, Arlington County legalized ambitious transit-oriented development and now has one of America’s highest rates of public transit use. SB 79 would also boost ridership by giving more Angelenos the option to live near transit, drive less, and reduce their carbon footprint.

This time has come for environmentalists not simply to add regulations to prevent harm, but also to embrace removing barriers to doing good.

AB 130 was an excellent start by the state in adopting this new mindset, and now it’s time for legislators to pass SB 79 as well. Together, they would unlock robust climate solutions: slashing emissions, curbing habitat loss from sprawl, and enabling sustainable cities, all without incurring new taxpayer costs in a time of budget shortfalls.

It’s time to expand our collective definition of environmentalism to include building toward a more sustainable future, faster and smarter. 

Thomas Irwin is an economic development professional and the lead organizer with Eastside Housing for All, a group advocating for economic opportunity through housing.

Awoenam Mauna-Woanya is a building decarbonization engineer at the California Air Resources Board and the lead organizer with Urban Environmentalists LA, a group advocating for a more sustainable Los Angeles.

Chris Rhie is a climate change and urban planning consultant and he co-leads Urban Environmentalists LA.

Chris Tokita is an ecologist and data scientist who sits on the Board of Directors for Abundant Housing LA, a pro-housing advocacy nonprofit.

That arrangement worked well for nearly four decades: local leaders made their case, voters weighed the evidence, and only the proposals with genuine community backing crossed the finish line.

Then came a 2017 California Supreme Court decision involving the city of Upland. While settling a narrow procedural dispute, the justices cracked the very foundation of that taxpayer safeguard. Their opinion hinted – without squarely deciding – that a tax placed on the ballot by a citizen initiative (rather than by a city council, board of supervisors, or other elected body) might escape the two-thirds vote requirement. Within months, consultants and politicians were scouting for ways to slip new taxes through that opening.

Now the Legislature is poised to turn that hint into law. Senate Bill 512 would let citizens place majority-vote sales taxes on the ballot via initiative to fund public transit. Supporters call the bill a “clarification.” In actuality, it would lock in a loophole that everyday Californians never approved – and that the court itself never explicitly endorsed.

Why does this matter? Because sales taxes – the favored tool for transportation measures – hit every Californian. Every time you buy groceries, school supplies, or a tank of gas, the sales tax adds to the cost.

Years of inflation spikes have left many families unable to afford the same things they could buy five years ago. Another half-cent here and a quarter-cent there may sound painless on the ballot, but the extra taxes pile up at the checkout stand.

Sales taxes add to California’s unaffordability crisis – and businesses pay, too, on the equipment they need to expand and hire. Even schools and universities are hit, siphoning dollars away from classrooms.

Defenders of SB 512 say California desperately needs transportation money, but this argument doesn’t justify shortcuts. The current system doesn’t prevent local governments from raising funds, it simply requires that they earn a two-thirds vote – proof that the community agrees the project is worth the cost.

Public opinion polls consistently find that Californians, despite having major political differences on many issues, oppose reducing the two-thirds vote requirement for special taxes.

This was reflected in the results of the November 2024 election, where Californians soundly defeated a measure that would have reduced the two-thirds vote to 55 percent for taxes needed to repay local bonds that fund housing projects (Proposition 5).

There is no difference – the tax is collected in the same way, the money is used in the same way, and the taxpayers end up paying more, regardless of who put the measure on the ballot.

California can fix potholes and expand transit without gutting taxpayer safeguards. Lawmakers should reject SB 512 and instead clarify that all special taxes, however they reach the ballot, still need two-thirds support. If the court cracked the foundation of our taxpayer protections, the Legislature can shore it up.

Robert Gutierrez is the president of the California Taxpayers Association, the state’s largest and oldest association representing taxpayers.

It is critically important that we examine how this administration tricked so many people into thinking we could possibly see a different result – that they would be deporting “scary” “dangerous”  individuals instead of teachers, farm workers, and lifesaving caregivers.  And then we must make sure no one falls for this garbage again, because this administration will keep using it with life-altering consequences. 

The answer is clear: it followed the blueprint used by everyone who benefits from our broken criminal justice system. As someone with twenty years of experience working in it, first as a public defender and now on policy reform, I know it all too well. To keep our prisons full, perpetuate deeply entrenched racist sympathies, and ensure tough-on-crime politicians are elected, those with power create fear, make outlandish claims about the prevalence and the perpetrators of crime, and harness the media to repeat them. They take advantage of people’s economic and social anxiety, flashing up photos of disorder and chaos. 

That strategy has worked for politicians for decades, regardless of party, and it largely worked on the immigration front until the Trump administration “administratively erred” by sending a dad to an El Salvador prison. We were primed to believe their lies and they knew it. 

The administration’s math on undocumented people never added up. To arrest and deport 3,000 undocumented people a day, the Trump administration would always have to target people without criminal records, given that immigrants—documented or not—commit crimes at significantly lower rates than U.S. citizens. The administration and its allies told us otherwise, assuming it would work because it usually does.  

Consider what happens when someone is accused of a crime, and especially, a Black or  brown person. The police make an arrest, put out a press release declaring they have “apprehended” a dangerous criminal, often posting their rap sheet. Prosecutors then proudly announce an indictment, promising justice even if they haven’t reviewed the case in any meaningful way. They generally do not mention any of the evidence that points to a person’s innocence. 

The media goes along with it. Turn on the 5:00 news and the lead story is about crime and a “criminal” with a mugshot flashing on the screen. The news doesn’t use a photo of the accused with their loved ones – that would breed some empathy and doubt – but a mug shot shows guilt. They don’t tell stories about the cases the prosecutor had to dismiss because they lacked evidence.

Put all of this together, and you have a public that thinks crime is everywhere even when it is not, and then willingly turns a blind eye to all kinds of atrocities that occur within that system. 

The Trump administration has followed this playbook. They exploit a few high-profile crimes committed by undocumented people. ICE tweets photos of the people with convictions it has arrested. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem stood in front of a group of men at CECOT so that people could see them in the most dehumanizing way possible, and live-streamed arrests of “gang members.” Officials repeat, over and over again with their words and images, that undocumented people are criminals and the media televises it. 

Similarly, now that a court has ordered the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia amidst public outrage, Attorney General Pam Bondi has suddenly secured an indictment accusing him of human trafficking, a specious claim at best considering they never once said it before. But she proudly announced it in a press conference hoping it would be reported and believed.

Unless we learn our lesson and stop falling for this cynical and dangerous posturing, we are going to see this behavior repeated. This administration uses this playbook to target protestors, women who have had abortions, and Black and brown people who it wants to portray as “dangerous” to garner support for a police state. No one will be protected by the law, due process, or morality. That’s not a reality we want to experience. 

Jessica Brand is executive director of the Wren Collective.

Because when you strip away the talking points, Mike Levin’s voting record reveals something else entirely: an extreme agenda that mirrors Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the far-left, not the families he’s supposed to represent.

Earlier this year, Levin voted against the Officer Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act — a straightforward bill to crack down on high-speed chases by drug cartels and other criminals along our southern border. The bill was named after a fallen Border Patrol agent. It aimed to protect law enforcement and innocent civilians alike. But Mike Levin said no.

Why? Because protecting our communities apparently comes second to protecting his political brand.

And when it comes to protecting the integrity of our elections, Mike Levin struck out again. He voted against requiring voter ID — something supported by over 80% of Americans. Voter ID laws are a commonsense way to ensure every legal vote counts and every illegal vote doesn’t. That shouldn’t be controversial. But to Levin, it is.

Even more shocking: Mike Levin voted to allow men to compete in women’s sports. That’s not fairness. It’s not science. And it’s not something the vast majority of people in this district support. Once again, Levin put ideology ahead of reality — and young women are paying the price.

Levin opposed a government funding bill that included basic voter protections and increased support for veterans. He called it “extremist.” I call that out of touch.

And when Levin had the chance to fight inflation, he made it worse. He proudly supported the so-called Inflation Reduction Act — a massive spending bill that did nothing to reduce inflation, but everything to raise the cost of energy, groceries, and everyday life. That’s not fiscal responsibility. That’s political theater — and we’re all footing the bill.

This is the same Mike Levin who backed the Green New Deal — a symbolic resolution that had nothing to do with real environmental stewardship and everything to do with reshaping the economy around government control.

But here’s what voters in California’s 49th District should really ask: What has Mike Levin done with the seven years he’s had in Congress?

He’s had seven years to make California more affordable — and instead, people are fleeing in record numbers. Families can’t afford to buy a home. Seniors are being priced out of their neighborhoods. Small businesses are drowning in taxes and regulation.

Levin talks like a problem solver, but he’s had the power to fix these things — and he didn’t.

Mike Levin doesn’t stand for common sense. He stands with the Squad, with far-left ideologues, and with a failed agenda that’s making life harder for everyday Californians.

In Congress, I’ll do the opposite. I’ll fight to secure the border, protect our kids, reduce costs, and restore balance and sanity to Washington.

It’s time for leadership rooted in reality — not slogans. Results, not rhetoric.

California deserves better.

Jim Desmond serves on the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and is a candidate for Congress in the 49th congressional district. 

I’ve been pushing back and working hard on commonsense policies that would make life more affordable and combat rising living costs, tax hikes, and persistent inflation.

That’s why I supported the historic funding package passed by Congress, which would deliver meaningful tax relief to working families in communities like ours.

I fought House leadership and the administration to increase the cap on deductions for state and local taxes, known as SALT from $10,000 to $40,000 for middle class individuals, couples, and families. This bill ensures families are not double taxed — putting more money back in their pockets.

The SALT cap increase I secured is welcome news for many working Californians and has been praised by firefighters, law enforcement, small business owners, and other hardworking Americans across the country. I also made sure we removed the SALT cap on deductions for certain small businesses. Without this provision, these small businesses would have seen a two percent tax increase.

In addition to increasing the SALT cap, the bill extends middle-class tax cuts that became law through the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017.

Without this extension, according to the House Ways and Means Committee, California’s 40th District would be at risk of a 17% tax hike on average. For a typical family of four earning the median income in our community, that would mean paying $3,930 more in taxes—roughly 19 weeks’ worth of groceries in Southern California.

For many families, the child tax credit would also have been cut in half, from $2,000 to $1,000 per child, if the middle-class tax cuts were not extended. Instead, the bill not only makes the child tax credit permanent but also increases the credit at $2,200 per child, lessening the financial burden that can come with raising a family.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, nearly 25,000 small and pass-through businesses across our district will see an increase of approximately $21,906,300 in their qualified business income deduction through the bill’s passage. This gives them the ability to expand their businesses, add jobs, and create wealth right here in our community.

Additionally, this bill ensures Americans will not be taxed on tips or on overtime pay, and it allows seniors to take an additional $6,000 tax deduction to offset taxes on Social Security. These provisions are essential for the financial security of so many working Americans. The bill also makes historic investments in border security, our defense, and our air traffic control system to boost shipbuilding capabilities, allow for safer and more efficient movement of aircraft in our skies, and ensure the brave men and women on the front lines have the tools to protect our nation’s freedoms.

There has been misinformation spreading about what this bill does, particularly regarding Medicaid. Let me be clear: this bill protects and strengthens Medicaid services for the most vulnerable American citizens who really need it, such as children, pregnant women, seniors, and those with disabilities. In fact, Medicaid spending is projected to increase 20 percent over the next decade. We must ensure Medicaid services go to those who need it. The bill also gives states the option to expand Medicaid home and community-based care services for individuals with developmental disabilities while ensuring those who are already eligible are not impacted.

This is the community where I raised my children, built a career, and have had the honor of representing. I know firsthand the challenges that families face trying to afford housing, transportation, raising children when every year costs go up. I also hear it every time I meet with a constituent, have a roundtable, or go to a community event.

Since coming to Congress, making life more affordable has been my top priority. I have always been an independent fighter for California’s 40th District, and I remain focused on delivering real results that build upon what we have accomplished to make life more affordable for you and your family. The passage of this bill continues to move us in the right direction.

Young Kim represents California’s 40th congressional district.

As I’ve discussed on these pages previously, California uses a special tax on managed care providers to increase its federal take. By using the provider tax revenue to pay for Medi-Cal services, the state can attract extra matching funds since the federal government matches state Medi-Cal spending on a one-for-one basis for traditional beneficiaries and a nine-for-one basis for those who became eligible for Medi-Cal as part of the Obamacare Medicaid expansion. LAO recently estimated that the managed care provider tax attracted $7.6 billion of federal funds in 2024 alone.

California’s tax runs against the spirit of a 1991 federal law which required that, to attract federal matches, state provider taxes had to be broad-based and uniform. But state officials took advantage of a loophole in the regulations implementing that law to qualify its tax.

Currently, California’s tax on managed care providers is $187.50 per Medi-Cal beneficiary and only $2.00 for other covered individuals. But it still passes a flawed regulatory test to determine whether the tax qualifies for federal matching funds.

When the Biden administration’s Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) approved the California provider tax for federal matching funds, it warned the state that a subsequent regulatory review might invalidate the state’s levy. 

Nonetheless, California’s healthcare industry placed Proposition 35 on the November 2024 ballot, which made the provider tax permanent and dictated how its proceeds would be distributed.

Now the OBBB has closed the loophole the state used to obtain CMS approval for the tax. Further, under Trump, CMS was already planning to change the 1990s-era regulations to close the loophole on its own. So, it now seems inevitable that California will lose the federal funds no later than December 31, 2026, when the current approval from the Biden era expires.

The provider tax regulation is likely to be just one of multiple changes that will reduce federal support for Medi-Cal during the Trump era. An earlier version of the OBBB would have penalized California for covering undocumented immigrants. Although that provision was removed at the behest of the Senate parliamentarian, it is likely that Congress and the Trump administration will try something similar in the future.

While California policymakers may be tempted to fight federal Medi-Cal cuts in the courts, a better option would be to rein in the program’s costs. This should be possible given the fact that per beneficiary Medi-Cal costs are higher than per capita healthcare spending in Japan, France, and Canada.

One step would be to deter unnecessary emergency room visits. The California Department of Health Care Access and Information found that Medi-Cal beneficiaries were about three times more likely to make avoidable ER visits than individuals with private insurance. While most privately insured patients are responsible for a sizable copayment when they visit the ER, Medi-Cal patients face no such disincentive. Federal regulations allow states to charge Medicaid patients an $8 copayment for non-emergency ER visits, and this ceiling may well rise during the Trump administration. California should start levying these copayments.

Finally, California needs to reconsider its aggressive rollout of Medi-Cal to the undocumented. As of March, 1.657 million individuals with “unsatisfactory immigration status” were on the program, not only driving up costs but also competing with legal beneficiaries for scarce provider resources.

While it would be wonderful to provide unlimited medical care to everyone in California, the state cannot afford to do so without massive federal assistance, and policymakers should expect that assistance to shrink during this administration.

Marc Joffe is a fellow at California Policy Center.